QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 8 2009, 10:43 PM)
You see that's where I disagree, sure its true religion can not be substantiated by facts. However the idea that all the topics being discussed here are supported by "facts and figures" is a gross exaggeration.
Or it would be, if that was what I had said. What I said is religion cannot be supported by facts, and thus is banned. Every other topic I have seen on here can be supported by facts in one way or another. Now whether posters CHOOSE to do so is an entirely seperate issue, but thats the fault of individual posters. And let me be clear, topic tangentially dealing with religion are allowed on ADS, as long as they are argued in a respectful and coherent manner. We have an ongoing thread on the merits of darwinian evolution right now, which I believe has clocked in at 4 pages or so, so far.
The idea that race debates aren't prone to generating emotion is also not accurate.
Or it wouldn't be, if that was what I had said. Stop that.
In fact I said the EXACT opposite, that race debates, while the still cause emotions to run high, can still be debated using facts and information.
The thing is, I don't have a problem with race debate or opinion driven forums. It's interesting to hear what people think, even if they cant always prove it with facts. We also have very general topics being debated here and not all of these topics intersect with politics or government. Some people prefer to debate things like what's current in cinema, or what songs they like.
Firstly, good luck finding topics like that outside the 'casual conversation' forum.
Secondly, debates about 'what people think' about religion almost always turn messy, and as such are banned here.
Thirdly, its hardly 'censoring' when the privately owned board is explicit about the banning or religious topics and the reasons why up front. Its not like they ban just topics about judaism, they found all religion tended to be a firebrand for the kind of degenerating flame wars this board strives to avoid. Its not like there are not 20,000 other forums on the internet where you can discuss religion to your heart's content.
There is no interest or desire in debating religion here at this point, that's been made clear. Why is there no desire? Well I'm hearing a few different things from different people, and although I cant really get into details about private conversations with the admins, I do know what at least one of the Administrators here believes about those who believe in god, based on conversation. I suppose I wonder how much of a factor personal opinions really play in this decision when compared to the idea that religion isn't debated because it cant be supported by facts, or stirs too much controversy.
Firstly, dont read conspiracy theories into perfectly logical premises. You have already heard from people in this thread who were around when religion debates WERE allowed (which in and of itself sinks your conspiracy theory) and said it was impracticable. I'm not sure why you find the need to hunt for some hidden motive at that point.
Secondly, even if your fantastic hidden motive WERE accurate... so what? Its their board. If they dont want anyone to use the word 'Gouda' on THEIR BOARD, and make explicit rules banning it, then that is their perogative. If that stifles the cheese-related debates you were hoping for, then feel free to visit one of the 20,000 'fromage-related' discusion boards on the web. Hell, if you look hard enough, you can probably even find a 'religion and cheese' discussion board which will serve up your heart's desire.
One time I actually had a forum closed that was primarily a science based post discussing real ways the world can end. Like from the impact of an asteroid for example. While nowhere near as long as my WOT forum, this was another forum I did, that I spent some time on. It was closed because the forum was viewed as too religious in nature.
K, your 'science based' question started of with a quote from scripture, referenced religion in every one of the first dozen or so paragraphs, and then asked three vague questions two of which were explicitly religious. Oh and by the way, the questions were incredibly vague, largely unanswerable and not condusive to open debate. Perhaps after your edits you could have gotten away with not having it so religiously based, but if I were a Mod I would have closed it anyways. In my humble opinion, but then I'm not a mod.
Ok so my WOT forum was a bit long, probably the longest forum ever attempted here. That's why I subdivided into chapter like sections. Each with its own set of specific questions. Then at the start of the post I said to the readers that I didn't expect everyone to read the whole thing, but i said feel free to read a section they find interesting and reply to any section they want. I mixed my personal opinions in heavily in the conclusion and introductory of the post but each subsection got very specific. So two dozen pages of rambling is not what that post was Vermillion.
A BIT long? Most threads start out with a post of half a page or less, your, according to you, was 50 pages. and you are willing to concede it was a 'bit long'? And I'm sorry, I have no intention of rearguing a thread that was justifiably closed a very long time ago, but lets all remember: that thread came out of many people challenging a lengthy series of unevidenced claims and assertions you made regarding the war on terror in other threads. I absolutely admire your attempts to evidence your previously questioned claims, but your self-defensive thread WAS rambling and at times incoherent. I happily admit I wanted to read it as I was involved in the previous debate with you, but was unable to chew my way through it. However, the quality of the post is utterly irrelevant here, the reality of the post is that it was a 50-page polemic on over a dozen topics, some with vague questions, some with no clear questions, others with very clear questions, and probably 30 or 40 questions posed overall.
The AD survival Guide only has two points on 'new threads', and they are:
> All new topics must have a clear, concise question to debate.
> New topics that do not have a clearly defined question to debate will be closed.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I mean it was a 50 page forum for starters, and the mod that closed it showed up in the room about 10 minutes after I posted it and closed it a few minutes later, lol. I was doing a final proof read and I only got as far as the end of the introductory when it was closed. Hell I have to hand it to the speed reading mods if they actually read that post and discussed whether or not to close it, all in a matter of 5-10 minutes.
I cannot speak to that of course, but I will point out that the thread was closed 26 minutes after you posted it, and that maybe, just maybe, they only needed to read 40 of the 50 pages in order to determine that it broke several of the rules for new threads. Look, again I dont want to reargue this, so perhaps if you really want the issue exposed, I can just ask: does anyone here reading this thread think the WOT thread in question should NOT have been closed? Anyone at all?
All this is appropriate to mention here considering the person who started this thread is talking about too many liberal forums being closed. The point is a lot of forums are being closed, for many different reasons as I showed.
If that was your point, then yes you are correct. Thread that break the rules of the board or overtly violate the recommendations of the survival guide are often closed.